Conservative activist, exploring questions of faith and politics

It’s just over two weeks until the nation goes to polls, and my prediction from the very start of this blog has been borne out – this will be the most uncertain and unpredictable election for a generation, most probably since the snap election of February 1974. I will admit however that two things have not gone as I expected – I did not expect the SNP to so comprehensively out-manoeuvre Labour in Scotland, and I expected that there would be a small swing from Labour to Conservative, and a larger swing from UKIP to Conservative. Instead of which, the major feature of this campaign is that the polls have largely stood still.

We should take one great encouragement at the very start – in such an unpredictable environment, the choice is truly ours. Very small shifts in the vote in individual seats all across Britain can have a profound impact on final seat numbers in the House of Commons, and in determining whether we have a hung Parliament (as all the pollsters are predicting) and whether it will be David Cameron or Ed Miliband who is able to pull together enough votes to ensure they can form a government – the BBC have actually got a very interesting game that aptly illustrates just how much the type of coalitions possible can vary according to very small changes in the numbers of seats held by a party.

I now want to contest one of the great assumptions doing the rounds at the moment – that a hung parliament is a certainty. I grant you that is what the opinion polls are currently telling us, but as one pollster in particular continually observes, opinion polls are snapshots of current intentions, not predictions of future outcomes! There are lots of uncertain variables – not least of which is that the election is decided constituency by constituency, and not in terms of the overall national vote. That could mean that the SNP for example, have a massive swing to them overall in Scotland, but finish second in many seats due to tactical voting by Unionists for the strongest non-SNP party. There is no accounting for how well the Liberal Democrats have ‘dug in’ to seats they already hold, or where their vote will go in the seats that they do not. And it could mean that the Conservatives (or, though I think it unlikely, Labour) do enough in 326 seats to win those seats, even if they suffer elsewhere.

I also think it is highly probable that this election will be very similar to the 1992 election on two fronts. Firstly, the conduct of the left-leaning minority parties (ie. the SNP, Greens, and Plaid Cymru) participating in the Leaders’ Debates very much had the tone of parties that assumed the election was going to fall into their lap, and that they could turn up to coalition negotiations with an extensive shopping list. There was more than a strong resemblance to Labour’s celebratory rally in the 1992 election when Neil Kinnock’s shadow cabinet were presented as though certain they would be the next government. The British electorate take a dim view of such self glorification, and may think twice about their desire to hand the balance of power to these parties.

Secondly, the tone by these parties (and to a certain extent the media) has been thoroughly anti-Conservative. I will be the first to admit the Conservatives have not got everything right, and I can think of several policy areas where I wish the Government had said more. It was nothing short of ridiculous however to see the left-leaning party leaders lining up to take pot-shots on ‘austerity’ while not making a coherent argument for a credible alternative. My distinct impression is that the prospect of a hung parliament was generating a certain triumphalism by the left, which one imagines makes it more difficult for moderate voters to admit that they approve of the government’s record on the economy. But the government, while not eliminating the deficit completely as I would wish, has performed an economy recovery that has been described as ‘textbook; by the IMF. Unemployment has decreased, real wages are rising, and the deficit is being reduced, with a concrete plan to eliminate it completely – and the left leaning parties have not set out a credible alternative. Similar to 1992, I think a lot of voters will not find it easy to admit publicly that they approve of the Conservative plan with so much public anti-Tory sentiment – but in the calm space of the voting booth they will not be prepared to trust any party that won’t take the public finances seriously.

I also want to challenge the assumption that somehow voting for a left-leaning alliance of parties will somehow ensure our economic recovery will be ‘fairer.’ It is not fair to borrow for our lavish lifestyle today and leave the cost to our children, grand-children – or potentially even our great-grandchildren. It is not fair to raise taxes so high that wealth is driven away from the UK so that the burden of taxation falls on those not able to so easily move their wealth, and who also can least afford to carry that burden. And it is certainly not fair to inflict five years of economic mismanagement on the nation by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, who still refuse to admit that they spent and borrowed too much while they were in government under Gordon Brown.

Which is why I make an unashamed appeal for how you should use your choice. It is clear that either David Cameron or Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister – no other party will command a large enough number of seats. I am not only voting Conservative – I am actively campaigning in Oxford for our local candidates to be elected, because they are the only party with a credible and coherent plan to ensure the economic recovery continues, and to eliminate our spending deficit – and the only way to get that security is by voting for your local Conservative candidate.

It will not have escaped anyone’s attention that my first three suggestions for the #NextStep people can take for the General Election are focused on the primary way (and sadly, for some the ONLY way) people engage with the democratic process – casting your vote. I make no apologies for emphasising the importance of voting, and encouraging voters to get registered and ensure they turn out – but I hope to stop short of such platitudes as “if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain!”

In the first instance, I recognise that readers may not be certain if they are registered to vote – in actual fact I contacted our local election officer at Oxford City Council only last month because I had moved within the last year, and wanted to ensure my wife and I were definitely on the electoral register! Firstly – if you are fairly sure that you are not registered, you can do so by going to www.aboutmyvote.co.uk and following the link there to register. The same page also includes links if you want to apply to vote by post (where you complete your ballot at home and then post it) or by proxy (where you nominate someone to vote on your behalf). If you’re not sure if you are registered, the same page allows you to put in your postcode, and find out who you need to contact at your local council to confirm if you are on the electoral register.

Secondly – I also recognise that there is a lot of cynicism about politics, and whether voting makes any difference – a common complaint indeed is that politicians and political parties are “all the same.” If you’re considering whether it is really worth voting, or even registering to vote, here are a few thoughts that may persuade you:

It’s always worth registering to vote – it ensures you at least have the option to vote, and if you choose to abstain it shows up as a lower turnout.

That said – I think spoiling your ballot is a much better way of recording a protest against politics. Not voting at all puts you in the same category as voters who just couldn’t be bothered to vote (and, to be fair, voters who forgot or were unable to decide) – spoiling your ballot requires you actively casting your ballot, and so demonstrates the scale of dissatisfaction to the other parties.

And having said that – a case I continue to make again and again is that politics is not ideal – but that it is much better to get involved and make a difference than to sit back and complain about how bad it is. It’s fine if you examine the parties and decide that you want to cast a plague on all their houses – but if you genuinely believe that one of the candidates or parties is better than the other – then vote for them! This particularly applies when choosing the government – if you would genuinely prefer David Cameron or Ed Miliband as Prime Minister, or would prefer a coalition government, there’s no use complaining if you didn’t express that preference by voting for it!

I am sure a number of you will have seen this cartoon doing the rounds last year. It is a simple fact of mathematics that the fewer voters who participate, the easier it is for another party to change the result – in actual fact, the BNP won two seats in the 2009 European Parliament Elections despite the number of votes they attained going down, simply because turnout as a whole was down.

Finally – there is a very positive reason to vote, even if your candidate does not win. Big changes have small origins. Seats across the country that used to be Conservative or Labour have fallen to other parties as they have chipped away in election after election after election – establishing the vote and establishing an opposition ready to step in and replace the incumbent. Even if you vote doesn’t impact the short term, do not underestimate the capacity it has to change the long term situation of your community.

I would summarise all five of these points like this. Protest voting, whether through abstention or spoiling your ballot, is indeed a valid political stance to take. But there really is no excuse not to be on the electoral roll – and many positive reasons why you should use your ballot proactively – not least in an election where only a small number of votes across the country might determine our next government!

As readers are considering the next step they would like to take for Election 2015, I would like to suggest that perhaps your next step could be to gather a group of friends. Whether you gather in a friend’s living room, a coffee-shop, or a pub (or go wild and have a 3 course meal!) there is a good deal of sense in gathering as friends to chat through the next election.

Voting is (of course) an individual choice, but the steps you take to reach your choice do not need to be taken in isolation. One aim I am confident every voter holds is the desire to be well informed as they cast their vote. This takes many forms – knowing which candidate is standing for which party; who is likely to win in the constituency, and how that result may impact the overall national picture; what policies the parties and candidates stand on; their past reliability on delivering election promises – these are all useful pieces of information, and quite daunting for one individual to gather by themselves.

This then is the advantage of meeting with friends – each of you will bring your own enthusiasms, knowledge and experiences. Questions will be asked that you may never have thought of, but you may also know the answer to someone else’s burning question. The aim of the evening, in a spirit of generosity, is not to land on how you should vote – it is instead that you leave the evening better informed than when you started, and better engaged with the political process.

Better informed doesn’t just need to be that you have gained a lot of knowledge. Some readers may not know what their next step is – but by meeting with friends you may realise that none of your group know a lot about the candidates in your constituency – so you each agree to take a candidate and share about them at a next meeting. Or you may discover a really important local issue, and decide you want to learn about it and ask your MP what they will do if re-elected.

The main rule of course is to meet with friends, and have an environment and discussion style that suits your group – but here are some suggestions that could help you:

Agree if any areas are off-limits. This is helpful because you want the conversation to be in a gracious spirit of friendship. If you believe that certain topics may conflict with that (for example, of matters of conscience such as abortion law) you can agree as a group not to discuss them.

Agree that the aim is not to actively change how people vote. So for example, you could say to a supporter of Party A, “That’s interesting, because Party B would favour this policy instead,” but you could not say “Party B have a better policy than you, and you shouldn’t vote for Party A.”

You may optionally agree that party preferences should not be expressed – whether you adopt this or not, you should agree not to challenge anyone on their party preference.

It may be helpful to agree areas your group really wants to discuss, and to prepare in advance. The obvious example would be researching party manifestos or local candidates, but you could also choose specific issues that your group care about – for example, students may want to specifically look at issues of youth unemployment.

If you know people who are politically active or interested, consider inviting them as a resident ‘expert’ – but do take care to ask them to declare any partisan interest that they may have, so that everyone is aware of the potential for their comments to be biased.

Affirm and encourage each other. Remember that the aim is to encourage as large a number as possible to become politically engaged – that may mean smiling at the person who wants to campaign for a party you don’t like, and saying: “That’s a brave step – well done for having the courage to get involved!” These kind of discussions aren’t for scoring party political points.

Actively ask each other what your next step will be at the end of the meeting. You don’t need to be as specific as “I’m going to vote for Party C!”, but the act of speaking a next step reminds you that the purpose of the evening is to be better engaged with the election.

And if you do hold conversations with friends, be sure to share on social media if you enjoyed it! The more people who take a #nextstep, the more natural it becomes to take an interest in the election.

The 2015 General Election is less than 60 days away. Or let me even more blunt: two months from now, we will wake up knowing whom the electorate have decided will govern the country for the next five years.

While we have known for a long time it was coming, and enjoyed the luxury of knowing exactly when the country would go to the polls, I imagine there are many different readers of this message – some who can’t wait for the campaign to begin; some who are already tired of the electioneering by parties desperate for their vote; some blissfully unaware the election was so close; and some so frustrated by politics and politicians that they do not care the election is so close.

It is easy to be apathetic and to let this moment pass by, but with the next election set to be the closest and most fiercely contested for a generation, I would argue that it has never been more important for the electorate to count themselves in. Ultimately it will be our votes, and the actions of many that shape how people decide to cast their votes, that will decide whether we will have:

a majority government, a coalition government, or a minority government

a Conservative-led or Labour-led government

a coalition government featuring the Liberal Democrats, any nationalist parties, or other minority parties

It is going to be our actions, and our choices that decide what House of Commons we wake up to on Friday 8th May 2015.

And that is why I am using this post to issue a challenge to everyone – to take a next step. Whether you start from the lowest possible base of complete apathy to any kind of politics, or like me you are actively and passionately involved (and most of us are somewhere in between) – there is always a next step you could take – something you either have never done before, or hadn’t planned to do. But in this close election, taking a next step will achieve two things:

It will be a tangible and visible expression of popular engagement with democracy – it will demonstrate to the parties that there is an active electorate seeking to be engaged and enthused by politics worth their attention.

It will encourage others to get involved in politics, in however great or small a capacity. The more people involved, the more people who will take an informed decision on Thursday 7th May, and the better reflective of the electorate the final result will be.

Over the next three weeks therefore, I will be starting a campaign called: #NextStep. The challenge is very simple:

You decide on the next step you want to take – I have listed a whole series of ideas below for all levels of engagement and enthusiasm.

Post your commitment publicly on social media using the hashtag #NextStep – for example: “My #NextStep for GE15 is to register to vote.” If you prefer, you can say “I’m taking a #NextStep for GE15 today” if you would rather not advertise what you next step is!

Use either the same post (or a different post if using Twitter) to tag three of your friends and ask them “What is your #NextStep for GE15 …?” Ideally link to this post – because we want each of the people you tag to tag their friends as well!

My hope is that as we follow the #NextStep hashtag over the course of the campaign, we will be encouraged by our friends taking new steps in political engagement. I firmly believe that an engaged electorate is vital not just for the health of our democracy, but for the wellbeing of society as a whole. This campaign is one means of giving our democratic community a shot in the arm, and building enthusiasm for the next election!

Organise a ‘politics evening’ with friends to chat about the issues that matter.

Join a campaign event.

Post a campaign poster or video on your social media feed.

Join the political party you always vote for.

I will blog on some of these over the next few weeks to give some guidance on how to go about some of these – and of course the list is by no means exhaustive – I’d love to hear your ideas and the next steps you will be taking over the next two months!

The next election is for us to decide, and every one of us can make a difference by taking a next step – why not do so?

At the age of 11 I was exactly one sticker away from completing Merlin’s 1997 Premier League sticker album – a very important accolade for any self respecting primary school boy back then! In the past two seasons I had been forced in shame to order the last stickers from Merlin – this time I was determined to finish the album myself, but try what may, I could not find a chap called Alf Inge Haaland who played for Nottingham Forest.

Then news went around the playground – Dee Chivers had the sticker! Two minutes later Alfie Haaland was mine, but I had lost something in the region of 20 stickers to get him, including several of the rarer ‘shiny’ club bages. Two weeks beforehand I probably would have traded him one for one. The reason for the sudden escalation in value is evident – it was obvious that I wanted the sticker badly enough that I would pay whatever it took to get my grubby pre-teenage mitts on it, and so Dee had absolutely no incentive to give me a fair price for it (The fact that 18 years on I still remember his name shows how much the injustice rankles!) I was so wedded to one outcome, it never occured to me that it would be less expensive to simply order the sticker by post, or not have revealed the need in the first place!

This anecdote, aside of revealing a rather sorry side to my character, neatly demonstrates a problem in our present politics – attaching such significance to an issue that you lose all sight of the cost, and potentially end up worse off as a result. Since the discovery of ‘issue-based politics’ by social scientists, there is one issue that without fail has a high valence with the elecorate – the National Heath Service. Any politician who dares impugne the honour of NHS or (heaven forbid) express the desire to abolish it, can profitably google ‘P45’ to discover what the electorate would be serving them up in May. Every politician upon becoming leader of their party falls head over heels to proclaim their love for the NHS, and their credentials as the best person to protect a national institution so cherished, that we boasted about it to the world during the Olympic Opening Ceremony in 2012. So emotionally charged is it, that the allegation Ed Miliband wanted to ‘weaponise’ the NHS made headline news.

The reason for this high regard is evident – we are all impacted by matters of health. Most of us are born in NHS hospitals; by extension, many of us will become parents for the first time in NHS hospitals.The NHS is the theatre for some incredibly emotional moments in life: relief when a diagnosis is positive, and shock when the prognosis bodes ill. Tears of joy when an operation succeeds, and tears of grief when you are told the worst. And over all of this – deep thankfulness, because most of the time the NHS does succeed in treating the sick, and all of us appreciate the difference it makes. With such emotional attachment, it is no wonder even those of us blessed with generally good health are righteously indignant that anyone should call the NHS into question.

And yet I am not sure that such devotion actually leads to good outcomes for our health service. When politicians get into a bidding war to top each other on health spending, nobody stops to ask themselves what incentives there are for wider healthcare providers to reduce their costs – they know that the NHS budget is never going to be reduced. Nor am I persuaded that politicians of any political creed decrying that their opponents will ‘wreck the health service’ produces the kind of thoughtful democratic accountability we ought to have for such a large publicly funded institution – the unfortunate example of the Staffordshire Health Trust is perhaps the most prominent recent example where this has gone badly wrong. The problem is, playing the NHS card is very sound politics – you connect the remark your opponent has made about the NHS and connect it directly to the voters’ emotive experience of the NHS – “What evil types these political opponents are, asking awful questions about our cherished national treasure!”

I was once asked what my stance as a Tory was on the health service – the assumption being that I’d be pro-privatisation! My response was: “The maximum number of people obtaining the greatest amount of care at a sustainable cost.” Yes, it is a politician’s answer insomuch as it does not spell out precise policies – but I think it captures what all of us mean when we refer to the NHS. We don’t want to mortgage our children’s futures for today’s health costs, but we want to ensure the money we spend today goes as far as possible to improve the health of as many people as possible. For me that actually means one very practical policy – don’t let any politician conflate their point of view to make it synonymous with the NHS, and potentially hold us back from improvements that could benefit the nation. They would, as with my schoolboy example, be so doggedly devoted to an ideal that they have failed to grasp whether doing so actually benefits the nation or not. And where it is done purely for politican gain, that person should hang their head in shame for putting politics before service to the nation.

A general rule of aspiration is that we want to leave a world that is better than the one we lived in to the next generation. It because of this hope that my focus is on the NHS we want to have, not the NHS we’ve currently got.

I came across a rather interesting post on Facebook – you had the opportunity to find out how many people on the electoral register shared your name. I was intrigued – until I saw that it was a Labour party website.

So today is a brief post with a big warning – expect more of the same. Social media is all about shareable content – it is sharing the links that say: this is fun/interesting/outrageous – it is the discussions between friends. That is why I begrudgingly admit it is a very clever scheme by Labour – it is an intriguing question, and one that you are likely to share with your friends when you find out – which makes them want to find out, and so it continues.

The net result however is that the Labour party end up with your details – and especially your email address. And that’s when you begin to get emails from ‘Ed Miliband’ (more probably written by the Labour Comms’ Team) asking if they can count on your support. It’s a classic data collection ploy, and all the more vital as the number of political activists declines and apathy to politicians increases – social media is an increasing necessity to reach voters, as indicated by £100,000 spent by the Conservatives on Facebook. Every party and political action group is trying to get your contact data, so they can get your attention – with the hope of getting your vote!

And so I say: “Beware of party games!” I’m not saying the parties should stop doing what they are doing, because we are under no obligation to help the parties whatsoever – we freely choose to give them our data. But I am advising you to be cautious dear readers when you see something purporting to be fun and diverting that asks for your email address and postcode – the chances will be that a party is looking for your vote!

(On a separate note, if you find a party is bothering you with their emails, you are entitled under the 1998 Data Protection Act to request any data they hold about you, and to insist your data be removed from their database)

Yesterday there was something of a minor earthquake in political circles when the figures were released for the latest opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft – which showed a quite incredible six point lead for the Conservatives over Labour. To date most polls had showed either a narrow Labour lead, or the two parties running neck-and-neck, so the figures were a quite literal bolt from the blue. But as Mike Smithson on Political Betting pointed out, the figures were also highly confusing, as an opinion poll by Populus showed a five point lead for Labour. They were conducted at the same time – so surely they can’t both be right, can they?

Opinion polls have taken a bit of stick over the years – not least since they predicted a Labour win in 1992 and completely missed the evidence of a fourth Conservative victory. But as Lord Ashcroft himself points out – polls are snapshots, not predictions, and they are only intended to give an indication of the general view of the public. So for those readers who don’t follow the polls, I wanted to share a few remarks to help you untangle this often heavily misused political device.

First of all, let’s clear up the Margin of Error. Politicians often bandy this about to dismiss polls that they disagree with, but it misses the point. The margin of error stresses accuracy – you only need to sample 1,000 respondents (provided the sample is balanced) to get a result that is accurate to within 3% either way – which isn’t bad at all (for those who wonder, you need a sample size more than double to reduce the accuracy to within 2%, and therefore pollsters decide it isn’t worth the expense). Taking the Ashcroft poll for example – the figures show the Tories on 34% and Labour on 28% – but it may well be both parties on 31%, or indeed the Tories on 37% and Labour on 25%. The margin of error simply means that it is not a perfectly accurate measure – but you can’t simply dismiss the figures out of hand.

Secondly, polls are snapshots of opinions. The question respondents are usually ask is “How would you vote if there were a General Election tomorrow?” – but there isn’t a general election tomorrow! If you look at historic polling (I recommend the UK Polling Report website for this – it is very user friendly!) you will observe that incumbent governments do very badly while in government but then recover as the election draws nearer. That is because voters don’t often like what governments do, but when forced to choose at the ballot box, prefer the government to the opposition!

All of these mean that the most important thing is not a specific poll but the overall trend. Politicians are very prone to take an isolated poll and shout about it from the rooftops when it suits them, and then turn around and dismiss another poll when the figures do not suit them. The truth is that polls can be useful for indicating whether a party’s message is sticking or having any impact – if their numbers are generally going up for example, even if the poll is not accurately guessing what percentage they will get in the end, the poll is demonstrating the party is becoming more popular. Based on that, the party that should have the most to worry about is Labour. As I anticipated in an earlier post, there is a swing heading back towards the government, and the Labour lead in the polls has been falling month on month. Phrased another way – their lead is nowhere near big enough for a party looking to win an election in less than five months.

A final word of warning is this – polls predict a national share of the vote, but elections are decided locally at each constituency, and do not account for variations in vote change – while the Lib Dem vote is likely to collapse from 23% to 10% (or worse) their vote isn’t necessarily going to collapse in every constituency – especially where they have sitting MPs. You should not be surprised if there are huge swings to Labour in some of their heartlands for example, but much smaller swings in the marginal seats. So we have to treat opinion polls with care, yes – but they can also be a useful barometer into just how well a party is resonating with the electorate. And at the moment, the barometer is not showing the kind of support that makes me think we will wake up to a Labour majority in May.

Today’s blog is in response to a heartfelt observation by one of my friends.I believe he reflects the vast majority of voters – he is not disinterested in politics and recognises the great capacity it has for good, but is bitterly disillusioned. To him, our political class seem to offer nothing but more of the same, and the satirists and commentators offer criticism not alternatives. Understandably, he feels that politics offers little by way of hope, and wanted to know what hope those involved in politics are holding on to. My brief answer is quite well captured the so-called Serenity Prayer: that I would accept what I cannot change, change what is within my power to change, and have the wisdom to know the difference. As I reflected on my hope, three thoughts struck me.

The first was that my hope is not completely in politics. Hope is tied to the idea of tomorrow being better – that somewhat the ills of today will not prevail, but instead will be overcome – and the greatest challenge is the human heart. I sincerely believe that both left and right wing politicians subscribe to this. This is why education is so important to the left, and individual responsibility is so important to the right – the left believe in the fundamental goodness of the human heart, that society corrupts it, and that education overcomes it. The right believe the human heart to be fundamentally flawed, but that a society which requires individuals to take responsibility for their actions minimises the hurt caused and encourages humanity to be the best it can be. While both have a point, I do not set my heart on a false hope – instead as a Christian I look to a future hope when the human heart is renewed, and accept that in this life there will be trouble and strife – or to put it another way, I do not feel disheartened when things don’t seem to change and the world seems horrible and hopeless.

That said, I also recognise that politics can still make a difference. The Earl of Shaftesbury is an example that I particularly admire. His commitment as a Christian to a future hope did not cause him to withdraw or to give up. Rather, in view of that hope, he gave his entire energies to making the difference that he could. He was instrumental in bringing forward legislation to get children out of factories and coal mines, and established a myriad of societies, including the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I could list other Christians who have contributed to public life, most notably William Wilberforce’s work to abolish the slave trade, simply to reinforce the point that even if Christians have their hope placed in the future they can (and should!) make what difference they can now. It is also easy for all of the failures of government to overlook the fact that government does a lot of good – not least in the defense of the realm and the upholding of law and order. Even beyond that, history is ripe with examples of educational and welfare reforms by all parties that have made a real and significant difference to the wellbeing of society.

My third point however is something we should all bear in mind – politics is a nasty business. The reason is very straightforward – while it would be wonderful to believe all politicians were altruistic, the use of political power attracts people with less honorable motives, and often corrupts even those with good intentions. Even in my young political career I recognise the challenge that not everyone is motivated by the right reasons – and sometimes it is not within your power to do anything about it. I also recognise human frailty and the capacity for mistakes – the Earl of Shaftesbury poignantly opposed the 1832 Great Reform Act – our political heroes sadly are not perfect! Of course this is discouraging – but there are countless examples from Wilberforce to Rosa Parks of people who faced major opposition and discouragement – but they stayed in the game, they persevered, and in time they made a difference.

The limitations of politics do not make any less important the very real differences those in politics can make. It is part of the reason I am encouraging debate as well as engagement – while I can forgive new Labour for some of their well-intentioned policies, I cannot forgive them for turning politics into a narrative where if you dare to express reservations, ask questions, or suggest a contrarian view, you are somehow a bad person. Politics exists because we do not agree and tough choices have to be made, which is why I have little patience for the likes of Russell Brand and the Greens (and formerly, the Liberal Democrats) suggesting that ‘new’ government will somehow make a difference. When the new leadership steps up, in whatever form it is, they still have to decide what the government should and should not do; whom and what to tax, and by how much; and what laws we should live by – they still have to make difficult choices, and you are still going to have groups in society who take decisions.

I am an optimist – but I am also a pragmatist – and I speak from very painful personal experience that it is very easy to be discouraged. A year ago my doctor diagnosed me with ‘low mood’ – in essence a mild form of depression. It makes me likely to see the worst, not the best, and to be easily discouraged. My wife is very good at getting me to change perspective – I am the type of person who gets to the end of the day, and is sad because of the things I did not get done, rather than pleased because of the things that I did get done. She reminded me as I thought of politics not to be disheartened because of what I could not change, but excited for the difference I do make, however great or small that may be. And really I think that is what my hope is for politics – for everyone:

Don’t be discouraged – because the capacity of good men and women to bring change is incredible

If you didn’t already know there was an election on the way, you will know now, with the launch of the first election posters. The Conservatives were first up with a poster that the BBC described as ‘firing the starting gun’ for the election campaign, followed by a Labour poster quickly afterwards. I hope it went unnoticed by the majority of less-interested persons, but for those following politicians and journalists on Twitter the reaction to the posters was somewhat unedifying – with easy access to graphics software it is not hard to alter a poster to change the message – as famously happened in 2010 when Labour’s Ashes to Ashes themed poster was purposefully taken by the Conservatives and used to their own advantage. It does rather have the air of pantomime about it, with each party crying “Oh no you can’t” and “Oh yes we can!” in equal measure.

I was inspired to write this post after the Spectator took umbrage with both campaign posters and suggested that the picture they were presenting was not quite the whole truth. While political spin has been taken to a whole new level, especially in the era of Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, it certainly is not new – as long as humans have striven to persuade others of their own virtues and the faults of potential rivals they have carefully presented their facts, and not necessarily told the person they are talking to everything they know. Even use of statistics is a double edged sword – in an episode of Yes Prime Minister Jim Hacker’s media consultant advises: “You can use statistics if you like, but most people who watch won’t notice, and those who do won’t believe them!”

Quite conveniently, I had the opportunity to sample this recently. I had popped into a store resolved to make a purchase. While the customer service advisor was of course more than happy to help, he was strongly recommending I should instead purchase a different product. To sway me, he tried persuading me that it would be cheaper and more effective and therefore a better investment of my money. In the end it somewhat backfired for him – I ended up leaving the store to think it over and bought nothing! But it shows exactly what politicians are doing – they want to persuade Jane and Jack Voter that their policies are better than anything else on the ballot – talking themselves up, and if necessary highlighting aspects of their opposition that make them look favourable in comparison. We shouldn’t actually be surprised by this – no salesperson is going to admit “Well actually yes, our rivals sell basically the same product for a better price” – they instead will do all they can to persuade you that their product is better, knowing full well that their competitors will be doing the exact same thing. For the discerning consumer this is not necessarily a bad thing – as in commerce the problem more often than not is not what the seller is telling you, but what they are not telling you!

So the political pantomime season comes with a health warning – each party has set itself up with a ‘narrative’ – a key message that they will hammer home again and again – and rather like a hammer, it is a blunt and indescriminate instrument! The narrative is not meant to answer specific policy questions but instead ensure you have heard the one key message the party wants you to hear. So how can we best make use of this aspect of political campaigning?

Well for one thing, let’s give the media credit where it is due – their job is to ask difficult questions of all the parties. So long as they are doing that without prejudice (that is to say – being equally difficult to every party) they are helping to press the parties on the finer details of their policies and strategy. But there we must also recognise a potential weakness of the media – however much we love to think it is fundamentally neutral, media editorial staff will have agendas, and they are liable to attack or favour campaign posters to their own tastes. To which I would say: let the media ask the difficult questions, but don’t assume they are any less biased than the parties.

Which leads me to my concluding point – rather than try and pretend that there isn’t a pantomime going on before us, with the media unsure if they are playing Shakespeare or Punch & Judy, meet the political circus on their own terms. I am glad that the Conservatives are leading with the message of the recovery because it is our strongest suit, and the number one reason to return a Conservative government in May – I am convinced that this message of the need to be fiscally responsible is a much better proposition than any other policy offered in this election. But the role for all of us is to drill into that bigger narrative and find out what it means in practical terms – it is to challenge your local candidates and ask what the national narrative means for your community. For the voter, the narrative isn’t something to judge in isolation, but instead should be a springboard for you to challenge the party on what they have to offer the country. It should not be about whether you like what the party is telling you – rather like with a salesperson, it should be if their message is true, believable, deliverable, and best. The party that has the foundation of concrete policies to support their narrative, is the party that is worth your vote,

2015 has been marked red in my diary for the last four years with one clear message: ELECTION YEAR.

With the election only 124 days away, I am opening this crucial year with a feature on one of the very first articles I read for my course on Voting Theory, which acknowledged a rather surprising contributor to development of electoral democracy – the adoption by the medieval Church of the conclave to elect a new Pope. Now, with my reformed Protestant theology I was not expecting that I would be very warm towards the article, but the explanation of how the Conclave came about was a fascinating insight into how the historic church used a form of democracy to achieve unity – while of course acknowledging that when the church was to divide in the reformation, one of the issues at stake was Papal Primacy! If one sets aside the religious aspect however, the problem faced by the medieval church was rather similar to what all modern democracies face – making a choice.

If you will forgive a brief history lesson – the Conclave was introduced in the first instance because the Church had to reconcile the fact (notionally at least) that God had appointed one person to the role of Pope, but that the Cardinals held sincerely different beliefs whom that man should be. A democratic vote was judged the means of acknowledging there was a division, and achieving a united result. In actual fact, the subsequent development of the distinct features of the Conclave vote, namely the necessity of a two-thirds majority, a secret ballot, and the Cardinals being locked away until a decision is reached, were all intended to achieve a final result that would be clear, achieved quickly, and would not be challenged afterwards.

The church may have been authoritarian in nature, and the era described many centuries previous to us, but there are some good lessons to learn from the choice by the medieval church to adopt a voting mechanism to choose their leader:

1. Division is to be expected
One of my favourite quotes is attributed to former Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour: “Democracy presumes a people sufficiently united as to bicker.” There is a worrying trend in modern politics to criticise opponents for daring to have a contrarian view – which in my view is both an attack of freedom of expression, and also what Sir Humphrey would refer to in Yes Prime Minister as ‘playing the man, not the ball.’ Let’s not be disheartened that division occurs, but rather be glad that we can enjoy earnest debate, reassured that every government will be challenged and held accountable for the decisions it has taken, and embrace the opportunity each of us has to assess the personal performance of our local MPs.

2. Elections are meant to ultimately unite
The intention of the Papal Conclave was (and still is) to unite the church in support of the man elected as the Pope, regardless of whom the man might be. The General Election of May 2015 will be exactly the same – it will tell us whom the country has chosen to entrust to the task of governance for the next five years, whether they should govern alone or in some form of coalition; and potentially even whom the principal opposition should be, or with whom the largest party should form a coalition. At the moment we can only guess, but by the morning of Friday 8th May 2015 we will know.

3. The choice is ours
With that in mind, we should remember what a great privilege it is that we have the opportunity to choose who represents us in Parliament, and therefore to determine indirectly whom will form the next government. The obvious flaw of conclave was the limitation of the franchise to certain Cardinals – whereas the vast majority of us enjoy the right to vote for our MP. We’re going to be divided in our sincerely held beliefs, but we’re also going to achieve a clear outcome by the end.

I would not be so arrogant as to attribute sole success of democracy to this part of the Church’s history – but when we ask what Christians have done for us, we can certainly learn from this aspect of their history, and take to heart the lessons for today.